Washington – The White House is pushing back against questions about whether President Barack Obama’s health care law would mean new taxes for many people.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
A day after the Supreme Court upheld the law, White House press secretary Jay Carney says the law will create a “penalty” that will affect about 1 percent of those who refuse to get health insurance.
He says the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Republican Mitt Romney was governor. Romney is now Obama’s presidential challenger.
The “tax” versus “penalty” label is important because the court said the penalty essentially is a tax, and that’s why the government has the power to impose it.
Republicans have said the health care law will amount to a large tax increase for many people.
Although the US health-care system needs some improvements Obama has just broken the best health-care system in the world and he knows it. He has defied the will of the majority of Americans this is what I call a true dictator!
You posted his spin for all the Libs here in VIN -so they shouldn’t feel bad that they are DEMO(N)cRATS. The Supreme Court said it like it is -the Truth – and he’s scared of the truth. Ya’know why the Supreme Court said – it’s a tax? Because otherwise -if it was a penalty – they’d have to throw out the law because it’s against the Constitution to enact laws to penalize s/o for not insuring themselves. They have civil rights. Civil Rights applies to e/o, not just minorities!
So does that mean that it is unconstitutional?
The court says it’s a tax, it’s a tax.
Oh, what nonsense. Its a tax-penalty…. I.e you pay more taxes if you behave a certain way then if you behave another way. As Justice Roberts said, that happens all the time. But notice the word “penalty” in that phrase… because its *avoidable*. Get insurance, and you dont have to worry about it. A pure tax is not avoidable. Geeps.
A key to the puzzle is to found in the law of Nedarim. Many members of Congress took a (foolish) neder not raise taxes. Bilshon bnei adam the penalty is not a tax and Grover has no grounds for complaint (although he will complain). Al pi din it meets the definition of a tax as explained in the published opinion. Two additional points:
1. It is not an enormous tax increase. What was labelled by the court a tax was only the relatively small penalty to be paid by the estimared 4,000,000 who do not get insurance. The premiums that the insured pay are not a tax; they pay for a valuable product.
2. I said a foolish neder because promising never to raise taxes means that one dare not lower them. Grover claims that even allowing a temporary decrease to expire violates his neder. So any lowering of taxes is irreversible. (I am remined of the halachic principle; Whoever says I didn’t borrow is admitting that he never paid back – OK, a bit of a stretch)
If you want to step on the grave of your dead relatives, call it a tax. If you like being a nice person, give it a description as a penalty. Either or you can not go wrong, but one way you might have more fun with the future in heaven.